Gerner v VictoriaCitation:[2020] HCA 48Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:10 Dec 2020Case Number:M104/2020Read more

Gerner v VictoriaCitation:[2020] HCA 48Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman JJDate:10 Dec 2020Case Number:M104/2020Read more

There is no general freedom of movement within a State implied by the Constitution. The directions under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) restricting movement within Victoria are not invalid on the basis asserted by the plaintiffs.

Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: Defendant
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Law / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Constitutional Rights, Freedom of Movement, COVID 19 Restrictions, Public Health Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Law / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) directions restricting movement are invalid as infringing an implied freedom of movement in the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the Constitution implies a freedom of movement within a State
  3. 3 Whether the freedom of movement is protected by the implied freedom of political communication

Ratio Decidendi

There is no general freedom of movement within a State implied by the Constitution. The directions under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) restricting movement within Victoria are not invalid on the basis asserted by the plaintiffs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed
  • No declaration of invalidity is made in respect of the directions or the statutory provisions